I agree with you that trades are not a cure-all for a lousy team. But I don't know if any quality free agents will come to a team that lost 99 games. Players are money-driven but winning is still important to them. And I don't see the White Sox getting into a bidding war at the moment.

Players chose money. There is no salary cap in baseball, players can get every dime they feel they are worth on the free agent market in this sport. Maybe in the NBA or NFL you will see veteran players signing relatively cheap deals with winning teams to try and win a ring, but that's because the caps in those leagues make it so their worth is artificially deflated.

For example, Ivan Rodriguez was arguably one of the premier FA during the 2003-2004 off-season. He chose to sign with the Tigers, who were coming off a 43-119 record because they gave him the most cash. He chose the historically bad Tigers over several other suitors, including the Cubs, who at one point where only 5 outs away from the World Series.

Players chose money. There is no salary cap in baseball, players can get every dime they feel they are worth on the free agent market in this sport. Maybe in the NBA or NFL you will see veteran players signing relatively cheap deals with winning teams to try and win a ring, but that's because the caps in those leagues make it so their worth is artificially deflated.

For example, Ivan Rodriguez was arguably one of the premier FA during the 2003-2004 off-season. He chose to sign with the Tigers, who were coming off a 43-119 record because they gave him the most cash. He chose the historically bad Tigers over several other suitors, including the Cubs, who at one point where only 5 outs away from the World Series.

Money talks.

You're mostly right. Some guys (like Paulie) take less money for the right situation. But that's the exception.

I agree with you that trades are not a cure-all for a lousy team. But I don't know if any quality free agents will come to a team that lost 99 games. Players are money-driven but winning is still important to them. And I don't see the White Sox getting into a bidding war at the moment.

Players chose money. There is no salary cap in baseball, players can get every dime they feel they are worth on the free agent market in this sport. Maybe in the NBA or NFL you will see veteran players signing relatively cheap deals with winning teams to try and win a ring, but that's because the caps in those leagues make it so their worth is artificially deflated.

For example, Ivan Rodriguez was arguably one of the premier FA during the 2003-2004 off-season. He chose to sign with the Tigers, who were coming off a 43-119 record because they gave him the most cash. He chose the historically bad Tigers over several other suitors, including the Cubs, who at one point where only 5 outs away from the World Series.

Money talks.

I agree only I would temper that with playing time. For example, a catcher may not sign with the highest bidder if he thinks he is a No 1 and the team already has an established catcher.

They also had a lot of talent on the roster and in their system from five years of losing. They used that system to make trades and promote players all season. You can't take just any 90 loss team and sign 14 free agents and say that's gonna do it. Most 90+ loss teams are in dire straights. You take our roster and sign 14 free agents this offseason with a payroll around $80 million like the Tribe and 100 times out of 100 we're competing for last.

The Sox have been trying to convince us that model is the way ever since 2005 ended. I don't buy it.

They haven't had good volume since 2005. some of that is their own evaluation - they decided that Wise was a good baseball player, for example.
Just get some good players who can get on base. They are around. Then get 3 great hitters to go along with that and you win. We had 6 holes in the lineup this year.

The Tigers do have three premium 1st baseman and, I must admit, they have made it work fairly well. I thought it would blow up on them defensively and it may still. But, so far, they have done alright.

Good trades can help a lot. This team needs a lot of good players. All this load the wagon for McCann, etc....to heck with that. We need more volume. We won our WS with volume and good pitching.

I agree we need volume, but I don't think free agency is the way to go about it, which is why I'd prefer if they do go the free agency route it is for long term impact players. The 2004 team was in a lot better shape to add a few mid level veteran signings, if they take the same approach with this team we'll just be treading water. The volume is going to have to come via acquiring and developing young players. Hahn's actually off to a good start IMO with the the acquisitions of the Garcias and the rapid development of Semien and Johnson.

__________________"Respect was invented to cover the empty place where love should be."

I agree we need volume, but I don't think free agency is the way to go about it, which is why I'd prefer if they do go the free agency route it is for long term impact players. The 2004 team was in a lot better shape to add a few mid level veteran signings, if they take the same approach with this team we'll just be treading water. The volume is going to have to come via acquiring and developing young players. Hahn's actually off to a good start IMO with the the acquisitions of the Garcias and the rapid development of Semien and Johnson.

We need volume in the system, and the only way to do that is to draft smart and draft best talent available for three years.

IMO, FA's should be 1-2 year placeholders only until prospects are either brought up through the system and/or near-MLB prospects are acquired for some of the higher priced assets we have that other teams may want, i.e. John Danks, Ramirez, Viciedo, De Aza, Beckham.

We need an infusion of good young players. All a quick FA fix will do is have us lose 85-90 games instead of 95-100 games, and kick the bottle down the road another year.